Daily news sites

The New York Times (WASHINGTON) - WASHINGTON — In more than a dozen classified rulings, the nation’s surveillance court has created a secret body of law giving the National Security Agency the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans while pursuing not only terrorism suspects, but also people possibly involved in nuclear proliferation, espionage and cyberattacks, officials say.

The rulings, some nearly 100 pages long, reveal that the court has taken on a much more expansive role by regularly assessing broad constitutional questions and establishing important judicial precedents, with almost no public scrutiny, according to current and former officials familiar with the court’s classified decisions.

The 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISA court, was once mostly focused on approving case-by-case wiretapping orders. But since major changes in legislation and greater judicial oversight of intelligence operations were instituted six years ago, it has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate arbiter on surveillance issues and delivering opinions that will most likely shape intelligence practices for years to come, the officials said.

Last month, a former National Security Agency contractor, Edward J. Snowden, leaked a classified order from the FISA court, which authorized the collection of all phone-tracing data from Verizon business customers. But the court’s still-secret decisions go far beyond any single surveillance order, the officials said.

“We’ve seen a growing body of law from the court,” a former intelligence official said. “What you have is a common law that develops where the court is issuing orders involving particular types of surveillance, particular types of targets.”

In one of the court’s most important decisions, the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle known as the “special needs” doctrine and carved out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures, the officials said. {Full Article Here}

Just minutes after a House panel Wednesday passed a package of sweeping abortion restrictions, Reps. Donna Howard, a Democrat, and Steve Toth and Bill Zedler, both Republicans, got into an interesting and at times heated discussion. This happened right after several House Republicans held an impromptu presser in the back of the hearing room following an 8-3 partly line vote to pass House Bill 2. Howard, who joined Democratic colleagues in a presser of their own, was still hanging around the hearing room and jumped right into the scrum

Ex-President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama converse during this week's trip to Tanzania. (Doug Mills/The New York Times)

dallasnews -A president named Obama may be most linked to overhauling immigration policy. But on Wednesday, George W. Bush will weigh in.

Bush will deliver opening remarks at an citizenship ceremony and immigration forum at the Dallas presidential center bearing his name, where it’s expected he will talk about how immigration reform will be good for America. A panel discussion titled “What Immigrants Contribute” will follow. The day will start with 20 immigrants taking a quick pathway to citizenship at an actual naturalization ceremony.

It’s unclear whether the ex-president will stick to generalities during his remarks at the citizenship ceremony, or elevate the conversation with details about the super-sized immigration bill now being debated in Congress.

The George. W. Bush Institute has thrown some weight behind measures to overhaul immigration policies and linked it to its “4% Growth Project,” which proposes such growth would create 10 million additional jobs during the next decade with no rise in government spending. The event will include panels discussing immigration and economic growth, why naturalization matters and “how immigrants serve America.”

Bush’s own promised overhaul of immigration policy was defeated in Congress. His measure with its five basic points is even featured in the new presidential museum, which also houses the Bush Institute.

The Bush Institute has pushed a small stream of reports and posts advocating an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws. Many are blunt: “How Conservatives Should Think About Immigration Reform.” Others note that the Bush Institute has backed “immigration reform” with a book co-sponsored with the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Last week, S 744 passed the Senate, but the real fighting on the overhaul will take place in the House. The Senate measure includes a controversial “border surge” amendment that would double the Border Patrol, supply drones and more fencing to the nation’s southern flank. It was viewed as an inducement to Republicans to rally their support for the Senate measure, but one that brought criticism from Mexico’s Foreign Minister and U.S. citizens living at the border.

Some Latino and immigrant-rights groups based in border states like Texas and California say they oppose a measure that includes increases in law enforcement they consider extreme. The Border Patrol has already doubled its size from about a decade ago. Among those voicing objections are the El Paso-based Border Network on Human Rights, the online group called Presente.org, and border affiliates of the ACLU.

Last week I was invited to a private online pre-view of the new PBS documentary, Follow the Leader. The film is now available on iTunes – via this link if you can use it: http://bit.ly/11RfZxW – and beginning July 9th on these other platforms: Amazon, Xbox, Playstation, Vudu, Google Play

FOLLOW THE LEADER has a rare U.S. TV Premiere as the only new film to air and the finale of the first season of the PBS/WGBH’s World Channel series, America ReFramed throughout this 4^th of July holiday week, and a re-broadcast on Sept. 11) in the top regional markets including:

New York City (WNET), Santa Ana, CA (KOCE), Philadelphia (WHYY), Dallas (KERA), San Francisco (KQED), Boston (WGBH), Durham, NH (NEWH), Atlanta (GEOR), Phoenix (KAET), Tampa, FL (WEDU), and many more.

You can also view Follow the Leader on Saturday July 6, 2013 here.

According to it’s promotion on the web, Follow the Leader is:

 A political coming-of-age documentary about three boys who want to be President. Over three life-changing years, each rethinks his beliefs and discovers who he truly wants to be as an adult

The over-arching question the film documentary asks is: What shapes our political beliefs?

After viewing Follow the Leader, a well-presented story of three highly motivated, top of their class, 2007 high school graduates, who in the beginning were all politically conservative WASPS (White Anglo Saxon Protestants), I came away with a few questions.

But before I get to my questions, I want to say that the film was very engaging and the young men, D.J., Nick, and Ben, were all very sympathetic. Here’s a little summary:

D.J. saw himself as a geek leader and he began to move toward the Democratic Party early on in the film. After he went off to college, he began “thinking on his own,” and realized that “the rest of the world doesn’t want to follow the United States.” He had a quick change of heart following his realization that there were “no weapons of mass destruction,” yet he voted for McCain and Palin. He thought Palin was hot. He campaigned for Duvall Patrick. He was befriended by Gov. Mike Dukakis. D.J. also worked on the Niki Tsongas campaign. He eventually decided that the goal of becoming president was not what he really wanted. He moved to a Bible college, got engaged to a girl named Hillary, and together they are building a youth ministry.

Nick was a strong conservative leader with some rather old fashioned chauvinistic thinking concerning women early on in the film. He thought that women were too emotional to be leaders. Once he went off to college at the American University in D.C., he really felt like a political outsider. As he began having “intellectual” conversations he began hearing the “echo of conservative arguments sounding ridiculous.” The fact is that he probably succumbed to some pretty strong peer and scholastic pressure. Although still a conservative, Nick decided to vote for Obama because he had such a “cool” story and “even though I disagree with all of his policies he can unite the country.” But Nick grew frustrated with Obama after just a few months. He now considers himself a “radical centrist.” He took a break from college and by the end of the film was working for Americans Elect, an internet based movement attempting to build an “all-partisan” third party.

Ben always thought he had something to prove and saw himself as a fighter at the beginning of the film. He stated that he “can’t settle for anything in life that is not absolutely perfect.” He was into paint ball and believed that “terrorism has shaped what my generation is…” and he believed that the vision of America’s invincibility was shattered on 9/11. Ben talked about facing the brutal reality that (WASP) male leaders are a dying breed and there will be a paradigm shift in 20 years. Ben was very down after Barack Obama’s election to President, and felt he had a challenge to bring the Republican party back.  Ben helped several Republicans win election since Obama’s election including Virginia’s Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II. By the end of the film, Ben was working as a part-time researcher for the U.S. Army and is engaged to a girl named Ann.

So there you have it. One becomes a Democrat and a Christian attempting to build a ministry, one becomes a radical centrist trying to build a third party, and one remains a Republican with a modest job as a part-time researcher for the US Army.

What’s my take away from these boys’ experiences? Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill especially when it comes to politics! What shaped their political beliefs? They are still very young and will continue to change, or evolve, as we all do. There are so many factors involved, including personality and life experiences, that it’s practically impossible to determine what shapes or changes one’s political ideology.

At the end of the film, Nastasha Del Toro hosted an interview with the filmmaker, Johnathan Goodman Levitt and with one of the boys, Nick Trolano.

I’m not sure why all three boys were not involved in the interview, but perhaps Nick was chosen because he sees himself as a radical centrist reformer who wants to “break down political institutions and policies.”

Nick says that we are ‘all in this together,” and we “can’t take for granted America’s role in the world.” He is now in journalism or political story-telling and he sees himself as evolved with a “nuanced view of politics.” He also thinks that there are too many old people in Congress since the average age is 60.

According to the filmmaker, Johnathan Goodman Levitt, “Follow the Leader,” is a non-partisan documentary. But is it really all that non-partisan? Or perhaps “partisan” isn’t even the right word? Perhaps there’s a larger world-view, or ideology, behind this entire series? I don’t know but I must ask.

The film is part of a series of 26 independent films called America ReFramed, which present “the stories of a transforming American culture and its broad diversity.” America ReFramed can be viewed online on World (worldchannel.org.)

Are we to assume that this particular documentary, presented by a liberal progressive organizations has no liberal bias?

Well we don’t know the political bias of the filmmaker,Johnathan Goodman Levitt. He wanted to keep it that way and he did a fairly good job of keeping the film politically neutral.

According to the filmmaker’s representative:

First and foremost, Follow the Leader received no funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), or any other American entity for that matter. The series, America ReFramed, which is carried by PBS/World Channel, is programmed by WGBH and by American Documentary, Inc. (a private company that also programs the P.O.V. Documentary series for PBS stations). CPB does provide partial funding to the PBS World channel and the PBS system generally, but the film itself didn't receive any such funds at all. In fact, Follow the Leader was funded solely by the filmmaker's company Changeworx and by European broadcasters, which were interested in a more non-judgmental film about American politics than most of the documentaries that come from American filmmakers. The licensing agreement from the public television system is also non-exclusive, and the filmmaker is currently pursuing additional broadcast options including Fox, Glenn Beck's The Blaze TV, and others. This is a rare film without any U.S. funding or partisan bent that attracts interest across the political spectrum.

Importantly, The Aspen Institute did not present Follow the Leader or this (or any) episode of America ReFramed, and has no connection to Follow the Leader. There is simply another show on PBS World Channel the features their proceedings, but that is a completely unconnected series to our film and America ReFramed as well.

We still have some questions. Why were three conservative WASP boys chosen for this film? 

Should we assume that other races or ethnic groups don’t have political biases or can change?

Or should we assume that the maker of this film is only interested in learning what makes young conservatives change?

There’s only one thing we can really assume. It was something I learned in a very liberal seminary some years ago. When you boil everything down, all things are political!

Follow the Leader, America ReFramed, TV, Television,  PBS/WGBH, World Channel, film, documentary,  political, beliefs, Johnathan Goodman Levitt,  independent, films, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, (CPB), The Aspen Institute, Open Society Foundations, George Soros.

As the United States celebrates Independence Day, most of its adult residents continue to say they are proud to be an American, including 57% who are extremely proud and 28% who are very proud. This high level of pride in being an American has varied only moderately over the past 12 years since the question was first asked, but has been lower since 2005 than it was in the years prior.

The latest results are from a June 1-4 Gallup survey. An additional 10% say they are moderately proud to be an American, leaving 3% who say they are "only a little proud" and 1% who say they are "not at all proud."

There are few differences by age on this pride dimension, while those in the South are slightly more likely than those in the East and West to say they are proud. Conservatives and Republicans are also slightly more likely to say they are proud than are liberals and Democrats.

Americans Believe Signers of the Declaration Would Be Disappointed

Despite their widespread national pride, Americans evince a much more negative response when asked if the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be pleased or disappointed by the way the United States has turned out. Seventy-one percent of Americans say the signers would be disappointed, while 27% say they would be pleased.

Americans have become significantly less positive in response to this question, down from a high of 54% who said the signers would be pleased in 2001.

Older Americans, those living in the Midwest, conservatives, and Republicans are relatively less likely to say the signers would be pleased than their counterparts. Conservatives and Republicans also were less likely to say the signers would have been pleased in 2001 -- when George W. Bush was president -- but the partisan and ideological differences are larger today. This indicates that Republicans' and conservatives' growing disenchantment with a Democratic president could be one of the underlying factors in the decline in the percentage of Americans who say the signers would be pleased.

{Read More}

BOSTON

National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group's organizers as "criminals," issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order. The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily." Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans. During a tense standoff in Lexington 's town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces overmatched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as "ringleaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large.

And this, people, is how the American Revolution began.

April 20, 1775

By PATRICK GAVIN - The McCain/Palin ticket lost in 2008, right? Fiction can change that.

”Christian Nation” is a new novel from lawyer Fred Rich that wonders what would happen if the Republican ticket won in 2008. But Rich goes even further than that, plotting a would-be Palin presidency after McCain passes away in the novel.

And although it’s fiction, Rich is dead serious about what a Palin presidency would mean for the country. As the title suggest, Rich is concerned about how religious extremists on the right could upend society.

“If somebody like Sarah Palin, who holds so firmly to this conviction that America is and should be a Christian nation, what would happen if she actually had the power to implement it?” Rich says his book “paints a picture of what that path would look like.”

“How could the federal courts, which are the only defense against all the nonsense you see out of the state legislatures, how could the federal court system be neutralized? What legislative strategies could the Christian right pursue were they in control of the Congress? It shows that it’s not impossible or unthinkable for them to actually be able to implement that agenda.”

What would happen, according to Rich and the book is a government that claims to speak for God and policies based solely on the Bible, which would overwhelming hurt gay Americans.

Rich says he used to be Roman Catholic, but now he’s an atheist. And he used to be a Republican, but now he’s an independent. And he says his book shouldn’t offend all Christians, just the extreme ones.

“This book is not intended to be a shrill, bombastic addition to this conversation. It’s intended to be a much more thoughtful piece of work. … 30 to 40 percent of fellow citizens self-identify as born again evangelical. It’s going to take a long time, if ever, for those demographics to change. And those aren’t bad people — I’m not hitting those people over the head. What I’m doing is shining a spotlight on the fact that some leading opinion makers — and the ones that can drive the politics in this country — are extremists. (Emphasis added)” {Read More}